green
Positive treatment
Hot · 56 in 5y
Issue: speedy trial claimPA ↗
Issue: Barker factorsPA ↗
Issue: determining factorsPA ↗
Issue: Barker balancing testPA ↗
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 7×
95.8 score
G Cite
cited 10× by 10 distinct cases, 2015–2023 · 2 courts ·
…when reviewing a trial court's decision in a rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.
at p. 700
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2013–2022 ·
…due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.
at p. 701
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2018–2020 ·
…periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule
at p. 705
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
Commonwealth v. Mills
(2017)
“I write separately to address the concept of “judicial delay,” and to emphasize my view of the correct role that “judicial delay” serves in a Rule 600 analysis. 1 The Majority notes that, pursuant to this Court’s precedents, including our decision in Commonwealth v. Bradford, 616 Pa. 122 , 46 A.3d 693, 705 (2012), “periods of judicial delay are excludable from calculations” under Rule 600.”
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lear, J.
But see Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 705 (Pa. 2012) (holding that a prosecutor acts with due diligence by relying upon the magisterial district judge’s personnel to forward paperwork in a criminal case to the court of common pleas for trial).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lear, J.
But see Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 705 (Pa. 2012) (holding that a prosecutor acts with due diligence by relying upon the magisterial district judge’s personnel to forward paperwork in a criminal case to the court of common pleas for trial).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lear, J.
But see Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 705 (Pa. 2012) (holding that a prosecutor acts with due diligence by relying upon the magisterial district judge’s personnel to forward paperwork in a criminal case to the court of common pleas for trial).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Malone, T.
periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Jackson, D.
periods of judicial delay are excludable from calculations under the rule
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Marrow, T.
periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Scott, A.
periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Malpica, F.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the commonwealth . . . has the burden of - 13 - j-a21021-18 demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Reinhart, R.
periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Butcher, J.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
when reviewing a trial court's decision in a rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, N.
Which indicates a Rule 600 challenge.”). - 12 - J-S07038-26 of the complaint ... subject to certain exclusions for delays attributable to the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stone, B.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Slaughter, V.
Rule 600 “has the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sledge, L.
It is well- established that Rule 600 serves “the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hamilton, K.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Zamichieli, L.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lockett, T.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Corbin, E.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson-Ross, J.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lapaglia, M.
“Rule 600 has the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Womack, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 WL 2789160 , *11 (Pa. filed May 31, 2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Womack, M., Aplt.
“An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will . . . discretion is abused.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferraro, B. v. Patterson-Erie, Aplt.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
It notes that the prosecutor in Bradford had demonstrated due diligence through evidence of its internal tracking system, in accordance with this Court’s observation that “‘Practicing lawyers must maintain docket books to make sure that they appear in court on the right date, file pleadings on time, complete discovery in a timely fashion, and do not run afoul of statutes of limitations.’ ” Id. at 33 (citing Bradford, 46 A.3d at 704 (internal citations omitted)) (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferraro, B. v. Patterson-Erie, Aplt.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
It notes that the prosecutor in Bradford had demonstrated due diligence through evidence of its internal tracking system, in accordance with this Court’s observation that “‘Practicing lawyers must maintain docket books to make sure that they appear in court on the right date, file pleadings on time, complete discovery in a timely fashion, and do not run afoul of statutes of limitations.’ ” Id. at 33 (citing Bradford, 46 A.3d at 704 (internal citations omitted)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Warner, S.
This is contrary to the long-standing rule that, “[s]o long as there has been no misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade the fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused, [Rule 600] must be construed in a manner consistent with society’s right to punish and deter crime.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 702 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Monosky, 511 A.2d 1346, 1348 (Pa. 1986); Commonwealth v. Genovese, 425 A.2d 367, 371 (Pa. 1981); See also Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 , 1238–12…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Victor, W.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Robinson, M.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. Briggs
P. 600; Com. v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (explaining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “adopted Rule 600, and its predecessor Rule 1100, to protect defendants’ constitutional rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution . . .” (citation omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Weeks, A.
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision in a Rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bowersox, N.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1087 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Griffin, A., Jr.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/22, 56-58, citing, among other things, Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700-701 (Pa. 2012) (addressing the factors in Barker’s balancing test).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Zaccone, J.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012). “[D]ue diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700-702 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cruz, I.
(2×)
Appellant’s claim implicates Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, which “has the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Armstrong, A.
On November 18, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss at each docket pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.1 A hearing was held on ____________________________________________ 1 “Rule 600 has the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stanko, T.
It is the Commonwealth, not the defendant, who bears the “burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gorrio v. Warden of Dauphin County Prison
P. 600; Com. v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (explaining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “adopted Rule 600, and its predecessor Rule 1100, to protect defendants’ constitutional rights to 2 Petitioner has filed a form § 2241 petition (Doc.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mackey, A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kunselman, S.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). ____________________________________________ opinion that accompanied its order denying Appellant’s omnibus post-sentence motion.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ungard, T.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Krebs, J.
It also contends that “the mere existence of human error does not negate due diligence.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 7 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 698 (Pa. 2012)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moss v. DeBlaso
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision in a Rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Harth, K., Aplt.
“Rule 600 has the dual purpose of both protecting a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights and protecting society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ridley, T.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 136 A.3d 178, 182-83 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Colon, 87 A.3d 352, 359 (Pa. Super. 2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Girimonti, A.
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision in a Rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ridley, T.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 701 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Thompson (Thompson II), 136 A.3d 178, 182-83 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Colon, 87 A.3d 352, 359 (Pa. Super. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brown, D.
Indeed, because the magistrate district judge unilaterally continued Appellant’s preliminary hearing, the period of October 11, 2011 to December 19, 2011, is excusable.7 See Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 704-705 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Moss, C.
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision in a Rule 600 case, an appellate court will reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa.2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Drummond, W.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Goldwire, K.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cooper, J.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hyman, J.
We realize that, given this Court’s holding that periods of judicial delay are excludible from calculations under the rule, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bradford, 616 Pa. 122, 141 , 46 A.3d 693, 705 (2012), courts of original jurisdiction must apply judgment in distinguishing between delay attributable to the court and that which should be allocated to a party.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HAMOT MEDICAL CENTER
v.
MEDICAL CARE AVAILABILITY AND REDUCTION OF ERROR FUND
v.
MEDICAL CARE AVAILABILITY AND REDUCTION OF ERROR FUND
Louis C. Long, Esq., Paul Kenneth Vey, Esq., Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti, L.L.P., for Appellant., Amy Griffith Daubert, Esq., Tawny Kay Mummah, Esq., Cindy Elaine Sheaffer, Esq., for Appellee.
Castille, Eakin, Files, Melvin.
Published
Lead Opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2012, the order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED, and the matter is remanded for judgment in favor of Appellant. See Yussen v. MCARE Fund, — Pa.-, 46 A.3d 685 (2012).
Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the decision of this case. Justice EAKIN files a dissenting statement in which Chief Justice CASTILLE joins.Dissent
Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
As the disposition in this ease is based on the opinion in Yussen v. MCARE Fund, — Pa.-, 46 A.3d 685 (2012), to which I dissented, I respectfully dissent, for the same reasons, to the reversal of the Commonwealth Court’s order in this matter.
Chief Justice CASTILLE joins this dissenting statement.